Renewables are inevitable, transmission is optional

We all agree that a 100 percent renewable energy system is preferable. But we don’t need a new, high-voltage transmission network now to reach that goal, and it’s far from clear that we’ll need it in the future.

But let’s be more optimistic and assume we’ll exceed these goals significantly (as we must to successfully solve global warming). All else being equal, we have to find the best method to deliver renewable power everywhere on demand, whether that’s a smarter grid (with demand response), storage, or new transmission.

Another trick here is that [ILSR doesn’t] consider electricity needs if we substitute electricity for a large portion of transportation energy, and possibly for industrial needs.

More electric vehicles means more electricity demand, but it also means storage. In Driving Our Way to Energy Independence, ILSR author David Morris notes that the Sacramento Municipal Utility District studied the impact of plug-in hybrid vehicles and found that the storage in a local PHEV fleet could fill in for 250 MW of wind power for 8 hours. If we electrify transportation nationally, we put millions — billions — of kilo-watt hours into car batteries.

Pursuing a new high-voltage transmission superhighway puts the ($100-200 billion) cart before the horse. Do we really want to build a new, costly transmission network that could be orphaned by a fleet of distributed batteries in cars?

Additionally, pursuing a new high-voltage transmission superhighway by using federal preemption is a tactical error. It risks alienating clean energy allies in states that prefer self-reliance to import-dependence. How will we solve global warming with renewable energy if citizens see wind and solar power as indistinguishable from large, undesirable transmission lines in their backyard?

We must have ambitious renewable energy goals and, ultimately, transform our electricity system to 100 percent renewable. But a new interstate high-voltage transmission network is not a prerequisite. Rather, it may prove a costly financial and political distraction from the clean energy transition.

Dig Our Work?

As a nonprofit news outlet, we rely on reader support to help fund our award-winning journalism. We’re one of the few news outlets dedicated exclusively to people-focused environmental coverage, and we believe our content should remain free and accessible to all. If you dig our mission and agree news should never sit behind a paywall, donate today to help support our work. Chip in what you can.